Committee says mitigation actions must include responsible party, funding and timelines; staff to seek clarification

The Admitigation Committee reviewed guidance that the draft mitigation actions in its hazard-mitigation plan are missing information required by “element C‑5(b),” and directed staff to seek clarification before the group fills in details.

A staff member told the committee the plan must identify who is responsible for administering each mitigation action (office, department or agency; names not required), list potential funding sources with more specificity than “federal, state or local,” state an expected timeframe for completion (the plan may use defined labels such as “short‑term” or “long‑term”), and describe the criteria used to prioritize actions—“including an emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized in relation to the associated cost of the action.”

The committee debated whether those requirements apply to every brainstormed strategy or only to the set of actions the group selects as prioritized for the final plan. One committee member said the requirements appear aimed at finalized mitigation actions rather than every strategy compiled during planning. Another member said the distinction matters because it determines how much work the committee must complete before submission.

Committee members agreed not to complete those details for every strategy at the meeting. Instead, they asked staff to confirm whether element C‑5(b) applies only to the actions the committee formally adopts for its prioritized tracker. The group did not vote on the issue; members agreed to return the item to a future agenda after staff obtains the requested clarification.

Clarifying details raised during the discussion included examples for how the committee might define timeframes (for example, short term as 1–2 years and long term as 10–15 years, though the committee did not set final definitions) and the need to move beyond generic funding labels by identifying likely funding programs or program types where possible.

The committee also noted that any prioritization criteria should explicitly consider benefit‑to‑cost relationships and ranking metrics the committee already uses (for example, feasibility and expected cost). Staff will attempt to compile those criteria and propose language to insert into the prioritized action entries once the scope (all strategies versus prioritized actions only) is confirmed.

The committee did not adopt or reject any mitigation actions at the meeting; it recorded a direction for staff to obtain the clarification and to report back at a future meeting.